Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists

Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010)
Biological Reviews 85: 935-956.

Journal Article | Published | English

No fulltext has been uploaded

Author
;
Abstract
Repeatability (more precisely the common measure of repeatability, the intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) is an important index for quantifying the accuracy of measurements and the constancy of phenotypes. It is the proportion of phenotypic variation that can be attributed to between-subject (or between-group) variation. As a consequence, the non-repeatable fraction of phenotypic variation is the sum of measurement error and phenotypic flexibility. There are several ways to estimate repeatability for Gaussian data, but there are no formal agreements on how repeatability should be calculated for non-Gaussian data (e.g. binary, proportion and count data). In addition to point estimates, appropriate uncertainty estimates (standard errors and confidence intervals) and statistical significance for repeatability estimates are required regardless of the types of data. We review the methods for calculating repeatability and the associated statistics for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. For Gaussian data, we present three common approaches for estimating repeatability: correlation-based, analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based and linear mixed-effects model (LMM)-based methods, while for non-Gaussian data, we focus on generalised linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) that allow the estimation of repeatability on the original and on the underlying latent scale. We also address a number of methods for calculating standard errors, confidence intervals and statistical significance; the most accurate and recommended methods are parametric bootstrapping, randomisation tests and Bayesian approaches. We advocate the use of LMM- and GLMM-based approaches mainly because of the ease with which confounding variables can be controlled for. Furthermore, we compare two types of repeatability (ordinary repeatability and extrapolated repeatability) in relation to narrow-sense heritability. This review serves as a collection of guidelines and recommendations for biologists to calculate repeatability and heritability from both Gaussian and non-Gaussian data.
Publishing Year
ISSN
eISSN
PUB-ID

Cite this

Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews. 2010;85:935-956.
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2010). Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 85, 935-956.
Nakagawa, S., and Schielzeth, H. (2010). Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews 85, 935-956.
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H., 2010. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 85, p 935-956.
S. Nakagawa and H. Schielzeth, “Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists”, Biological Reviews, vol. 85, 2010, pp. 935-956.
Nakagawa, S., Schielzeth, H.: Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews. 85, 935-956 (2010).
Nakagawa, Shinichi, and Schielzeth, Holger. “Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists”. Biological Reviews 85 (2010): 935-956.
This data publication is cited in the following publications:
This publication cites the following data publications:

190 Citations in Europe PMC

Data provided by Europe PubMed Central.

Personality drives physiological adjustments and is not related to survival.
Bijleveld AI, Massourakis G, van der Marel A, Dekinga A, Spaans B, van Gils JA, Piersma T., Proc. Biol. Sci. 281(1783), 2014
PMID: 24671971
Rater agreement on gait assessment during neurologic examination of horses.
Olsen E, Dunkel B, Barker WH, Finding EJ, Perkins JD, Witte TH, Yates LJ, Andersen PH, Baiker K, Piercy RJ., J. Vet. Intern. Med. 28(2), 2014
PMID: 24612411
Making the in vitro breeding of Schistocephalus solidus more flexible.
Weinreich F, Kalbe M, Benesh DP., Exp. Parasitol. 139(), 2014
PMID: 24560832
Heritable variation in host tolerance and resistance inferred from a wild host-parasite system.
Maze-Guilmo E, Loot G, Paez DJ, Lefevre T, Blanchet S., Proc. Biol. Sci. 281(1779), 2014
PMID: 24478295
All eggs are made equal: meta-analysis of egg sexual size dimorphism in birds.
Rutkowska J, Dubiec A, Nakagawa S., J. Evol. Biol. 27(1), 2014
PMID: 24313923
Individual differences affect honest signalling in a songbird.
Akcay C, Campbell SE, Beecher MD., Proc. Biol. Sci. 281(1775), 2014
PMID: 24307671
Delineating the roles of males and females in sperm competition.
Evans JP, Rosengrave P, Gasparini C, Gemmell NJ., Proc. Biol. Sci. 280(1772), 2013
PMID: 24266039
Agreement of fall classifications among staff in U.S. hospitals.
Simon M, Klaus S, Gajewski BJ, Dunton N., Nurs Res 62(2), 2013
PMID: 23302822
Pairing context determines condition-dependence of song rate in a monogamous passerine bird.
David M, Auclair Y, Dall SR, Cezilly F., Proc. Biol. Sci. 280(1753), 2013
PMID: 23256191
Individual variation in sleep-wake rhythms in free-living birds.
Mueller JC, Steinmeyer C, Kempenaers B., Chronobiol. Int. 29(9), 2012
PMID: 22881222

Export

0 Marked Publications

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

PMID: 20569253
PubMed | Europe PMC

Search this title in

Google Scholar